Gilles J. Seguin wrote:
> -1
> I vote against
> reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPM_%28image_format%29
> your arguments about transparent pixels is wrong, and XPM is more
> flexible than the others one.
Me too.
> - i do not want to break with the unix tradition of supporting legacy
> applications
> - are xpm icons still allow in default icon directories
> - what will be the beahavior if included
> - i do not agree with the pejorative used of old standard
> - xpm is still the only way to include raster images in "C" programs
> example #include "xicon64" directives
> - is the proposition include commenting xlib library manuals for fedora
> particular used of icons.
> - xbitmap is the only mechanism to specify 15 bits display screen,
> or dispaly with depth different from 8,16,24
> - xbitmap can be 32 bits deep
> - xbitmap may have alpha channels specified has masks
> - xbitmap allow compositing more complex icons
> and obviously bitmap is also implied, since they are XPM of depth one
Good points there.
In addition, I don't think it is the software center's job to arbitrarily
restrict allowed icon types beyond what freedesktop.org specifies.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
